The rest

Articles

’Occupy without Counting’: Furtive Urbanism in the Films of Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne (1-15)
R.D. Crano

Hegel and the Impossibility of the Future in Science Fiction Cinema (16-37)
Todd McGowan

Godfathers and Sons: Tripping Over the Unconscious (38-52)
Timothy O’Leary

Consumer Ethics in Thank You For Smoking (53-67)
Stacy Thompson

Meanings and authorships in Dune (68-89)
Tony Todd

Kant claims that the experience of beauty rests on what he calls a “harmony,” or a “free play” of the faculties of imagination and understanding, punctuated by pleasure. Famously, this free play is supposed to be “without concept” (§9, 5:217-9; 102-4).[1] In his new book, Kenneth Rogerson argues that “only the doctrine of beauty as the expression of ideas gives Kant a plausible explanation of how we can see objects of beauty as free harmonies” (p. 3).[2] The novelty of Rogerson’s approach is twofold. First, he argues that aesthetic ideas can explain not only artistic, but also natural beauty. Second, he stresses the importance of expression: both nature and art talk to us, as it were, and thereby bring about the free play of our faculties. Rogerson bases his solution to the problem of the concept-less harmony on a sharp distinction between concepts and ideas. Since his solution involves ideas rather than concepts, it meets Kant’s “no-concept” requirement head on: “an artwork (or natural object) that can be interpreted as expressing an aesthetic idea will accomplish this expression via a mental state that is free of concepts and yet orderly due to the fact that it expresses an idea” (p. 3).

The rest of the review

Link

Derek Attridge and Henry Staten – Reading for the Obvious: A Conversation

Scott Durham – “The Center of the World Everywhere”: Bamako and the Scene of the Political

Rosalind Galt – The Obviousness of Cinema

Sandra Gibson + Luis Recoder – Cinema/Film

Christian Keathley – Otto Preminger and the Surface of Cinema

David Farrell Krell – The School for Stupefaction

Scott Krzych – Kino Ex Nihilo

Ernesto Laclau in conversation with Brian Price and Meghan Sutherland – Not a Ground but a Horizon

Sam Lipsyte – A Pimple on the Ass of Drew Barrymore Speaks

Karen Pinkus – Nothing from Nothing: Alchemy and the Economic Crisis

Angelo Restivo – The Obvious: Three Reminiscences

Stephen G. Rhodes – Interregnum Reanimated: The Living Cemetery

Jeffrey Sconce – Circuit City Unplugged

Download the paper here: http://socrates.berkeley.edu/~hdreyfus/189_f08/pdf/Heidegger%20OWA%20sept13_08.pdf.

Via Philosophy’s Other

A special issue of Art and Research on Ranciere

And an article, “Zizek for Jews“

Paul Guyer’s stated aims in this collection of previously published essays are to show that “the philosophical approach Kant developed for showing that our concept of and beliefs about causation have a foundation that Hume denied they have also provides Kant with an approach for addressing the concerns Hume raised about external objects and the self”, and that, beyond the domain of metaphysics proper, “important elements of Kant’s moral philosophy, his aesthetics, and his teleology can be fruitfully read as responses to Hume” (p. 7). These are fairly bland claims, but in the course of establishing them, Guyer presents in short compass his own systematic and comprehensive interpretations of these two thinkers in the areas in which their themes overlap. Here I summarize the basic positions Guyer stakes out for himself in the book’s five chapters, and express a few worries along the way.

Link to the review